People v. Rhames
Opinion
People v Rhames
2021 NY Slip Op 34141(U)
August 23, 2021
Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: Ind. 21-0304 Judge: Susan M. Capeci
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ----------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DECISION AND ORDER Ind. 21-
-against-
FILED
AND
ENTERED
SHAUN RHAMES, Defendant. ON <;':- ZB 20.kl
WESTCHESTER
----------------------------------------------------------------X ~OUNTY CLERK
The defendant, charged by indictment with two counts of assault in the second degree (P.L. 120.05 (2) and 120.05 (12)), unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (P.L. 135.10), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (P.L. 265.01 (2)), and menacing in the second degree (P.L. 120.14 (1)), makes this omnibus motion seeking: 1) inspection of the grand jury minutes by the Court and the defendant, and thereafter, for the dismissal of the indictment and/or reduction of the charges contained therein; 2) suppression of physical evidence, or a Mapp/Dunaway hearing; 3) suppression of the statements alleged to have been made by her, with the exception of her Grand Jury testimony, or in the alternative, for a Huntley hearing; 4) a SandovalNentimiglia/Molineux hearing; 5) disclosure of Brady material; and 6) a reservation of rights to make further pre-trial motions as necessary.
The People consent to an in camera review by the Court of the Grand Jury minutes for legal sufficiency and the release of the grand jury testimony to the defendant, consent to a SandovalNentimiglia/Molineux hearing, to a Huntley hearing limited to defendant's 5th amendment claims, and to a Mfilm hearing, but otherwise
oppose the motion. The Court now finds as follows.
FILED ~
AUG 2 3 2021
TIMOTHY C. IDONI
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
1. MOTION TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY MINUTES AND TO DISMISS AND/OR REDUCE THE INDICTMENT Defendant moves pursuant to CPL §§210.20(1 )(b) and [c] to dismiss the indictment, or counts thereof, on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient and that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning of CPL §210.35. The Court has reviewed the minutes of the proceedings before the Grand Jury.
Pursuant to CPL §190.65 (1 ), an indictment must be supported by legally sufficient evidence which establishes that the defendant committed the offenses charged. Legally sufficient evidence is competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish each and every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL §70.10[1 ]); People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103 [1986]). "In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 (1998); People v Ackies, 79 AD3d 1050 (2 nd Dept 2010)). In rendering a determination, "[t]he reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of each element of the charged crimes and whether the grand jury could rationally have drawn the inference of guilt" (Bello, supra, quoting People v Boampong, 57 AD3d 794 (2 nd Dept 2008-- internal quotations omitted).
A review of the minutes reveals that the evidence presented, if accepted as true, would be legally sufficient to establish every element of the offenses charged (see CPL
§210.30[2]). Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss or reduce for lack of sufficient evidence is denied.
With respect to Defendant's claim that the Grand Jury proceeding was defective within the meaning of CPL §210.35, a review of the minutes supports a finding that a quorum of the grand jurors was present during the presentation of evidence and at the time the district attorney instructed the Grand Jury on the law, that the grand jurors who voted to indict heard all the "essential and critical evidence" (see People v Collier, 72 NY2d 298 [1988]; People v Julius, 300 AD2d 167 [1 st Dept 2002], Iv den 99 NY2d 655 [2003]), and that the Grand -Jury was properly instructed (see People v Calbud, 49 NY2d 389 [1980] and People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36 [1984]). With respect to the defendant's contention that a justification charge should have been given to _the Grand Jury, such charge was in fact given, and was done so properly in accordance with applicable law.
In making this determination, the Court does not find that release of such portions of the Grand Jury minutes as have not already been disclosed pursuant to CPL Article 245 to the parties was necessary to assist the Court. 2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE The defendant moves to suppress all physical evidence seized from her person, as well as evidence seized from any area in which she had an expectation of privacy, including her home, as having been improperly seized following her unlawful arrest.
The defendant's motion for a Dunaway hearing as to probable cause for her arrest is denied, as she has not made any allegations of fact, sworn or otherwise, to support her claim that she was unlawfully arrested. Moreover, the information provided
to her as discovery indicates ample probable cause for her arrest. The defendant made a 911 call to police, reporting that the victim was injured, and suggesting she caused the injuries. Upon their arrival at the scene, the police officers found the victim outside the home, bleeding, with visible injuries, and observed the defendant standing outside the doorway holding two bloody knives. The defendant then made further statements about having caused the victim's injuries. Thus, as probable cause existed for her arrest, any evidence recovered from the defendant's person was seized incident to her lawful arrest (People v Belton, 55 NY2d 49 (1982)).
However, since there is a factual issue as to the circumstances under which evidence was subsequently obtained from the defendant's home, the defendant's motion for a .Mfilm hearing is granted, on consent (People v Mendoza, 82 NY2d 415 (1993); People v Bryant, 8 NY3d 530 (2007)). The People assert that the defendant's consent to enter her home was voluntarily given, and that the items of evidence that were seized from the home were in "plain view." These issues shall be considered at a hearing with respect to the seizure of this evidence. 3. MOTION TO SUPRESS STATEMENTS The People have served the defendant with 6 separate CPL 710.30 notices with respect to oral statements alleged to have been made by her to law enforcement authorities 1 . The defendant argues that 5 of these noticed statements, with the
I The statements, each made to members of the Mt. Vernon Police Department, are as follows: I) Oral statement recorded electronically, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:26 pm, at 600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY via 911 call; 2) Oral statement recorded electronically, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:45 pm, at 600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY via 911 call; 3) Oral statement recorded electronically, via body cam, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 12:50 pm, in the area of600 South 8th Avenue, Mt Vernon, NY; 4) Oral statement recorded electronically, via body cam, made Feb. 21, 2021, at 4:30 pm, at Montefiore Mt. Vernon Hospital, Mt Vernon, NY; 5) Oral statement made Feb. 21, 2021, from 6pm to 10 pm, in the cell block at Mt. Vernon Police Department, to PO Mendez. A 6 th statement made before the
exception of the statement made to the Grand Jury, should be suppressed as involuntarily made.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2021 NY Slip Op 34141(U) (People v. Rhames) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.